rainbow walking

I find the challenge of justifying an all good god co-existing with an evil world an intriguing challenge, so I’ve decided to give it a whirl. I’m sure my atheist co-conspirators will enjoy ripping my arguments to shreds but…what the hell…nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I shall begin with some basic assumptions and present them as premises and try to justify them as best as I can. I shall have to make reference to scripture (what choice do I have?) and also to common knowledge.

My defense will hinge on a delineation between individual man and historical man. By historical man I mean to convey the human species in the aggregate from past to present.

My goal is to arrive at a rational conclusion that an all good god can co-exist with an evil world and sustain his all goodness. Of course, my underlying assumption is to proceed from a basis (for the sake of argument) that an omni-benevolent god exists and created everything else that exists. I will also try not to stray too far from conventional Christian biblical interpretation. (Whew, am I nuts or what…?)

1. My first premise will be to establish the assumption that freewill is a viable concept to describe man’s active participation in the development of human history. I am not arguing that man’s will is totally free but is free within the specific constraints afforded by his environment and his nature as man. Our choices are limited but not pre-determined. This is my first assumption.

2. My second premise will be to establish that good and evil exist independent of both man and god respectively. Not that they could exist without either, but that they exist independently of each individually. I shall hereinafter refer to good and evil as GnE. This is my second assumption.

3. My third premise will be to establish that god also has freewill and his choices can also be categorized as either good or evil. This should be clear from various scriptural renderings where he has been revealed to have declared that he is the author of both GnE and can choose, and indeed has chosen evil when it suited his purpose. This is my third assumption.

4. My fourth premise will be to establish that arriving at a reasonable conception of all good, (omni-benevolence), requires the inception of evil. Not that evil is a necessity for all goodness but that it is a prerequisite of arriving at all goodness. That without the presence of some form of evil, goodness could not be recognized nor preferred as a choice. This is my fourth assumption.

5. My fifth premise will be to establish that historical man, (as opposed to individual men), has demonstrated a preference for goodness. That this preference is demonstrated in his culture, governments, laws and history. This is my fifth assumption.

6. My sixth premise will be to establish that the achievement of man’s preference of goodness is an on-going process requiring constant vigilance against evil. Again this is demonstrated in man’s culture, governances, laws and history. This is my sixth assumption.

7. My seventh, and final premise, is that this god established man to operate within the context of this process, (of arriving at a state of all goodness) for his, (god’s), pleasure. That, being all good, this god’s pleasure will necessarily reflect this attribute in its fulfillment of man’s history.



It is my first contention that god’s all goodness is insulated from reproach on the very basis of the co-existence of evil. This assertion stands on premise two above, that GnE exists independent of both god and man. Being defined as omni-benevolent insulates him from reproach, in the first place, because it places him on equal footing with man in respect to the choice of good or evil. One can not be so defined unless one has had the option of choice. In this respect, omni-benevolence simply means that in every case where god chooses, he will choose the greatest good for historical man…even if it initially appears to man to be evil. In the second place, the co-existence of evil also means the co-existence of good, thus, if goodness is man’s preference, an all good god would be beyond reproach for allowing man every opportunity to fulfill his preference. Which leads to my second contention:

My second contention is that all of god’s choices must necessarily be good for man as a historical being, to fulfill god’s pleasure and purpose for creating man as an individual. Inasmuch as I’ve articulated man’s preference for goodness and the process required for its achievement, not all of god’s choices will appear to any individual man to be good or based on that man’s good. In this respect I contend that god’s pleasure is served by his purpose for historical man more than individual man, that it must be necessarily so and that this assumption is supported by his declaration in Genesis to make (historical) man in his image, (that being all good), and that this declaration is evident and witnessed by the following observations:

1.By creating man to prefer goodness above evil;

2. By his provision of an example for that accomplishment in the Law, and

3. For its relief in forgiveness which is a prime example of good triumphing over evil.

I also assert this provision is substantiated by man’s science in that man has determined, somewhat, the course of his past history, having risen up out of his environment to dominate and subdue it; that some evils have been defined, legislated against and man continues to enforce said legislation, and that his cultures and societies reflect this preference in their sustenance and constitutions.

My third and final contention is that arguments designed to play one of god’s attributes off of another are invalid because they do not respond to the challenge of why an all good god would co-exist with an evil world. For individual man to bring reproach on god based on god’s omnipotence, for instance, assumes that man’s achievement of his preference of goodness could be achieved by god in some better way that doesn’t inculcate the process necessary to achieving all goodness. If an all good man brings the greatest pleasure to god, (witnessed by JC of the gospel narratives), can such a preference be accomplished without man’s participation? If man is a non-participant in this process then freewill is not a valid argument.

Neither does an omniscient god violate freewill or bring reproach against the omni-benevolence attribute because, according to the bible, god’s ultimate pleasure and purpose for an all good historical man, created in his image, will be accomplished. If the accomplishment dictates a process of evil co-existing with god and we allow the omniscience of this god, then we have to conclude that he knows more than we do as individual men or historical man. Thus the process necessitates man’s participation and is achieved via freewill. So an all good god can co-exist with an evil world, sustain his character from reproach and achieve his purpose…which will bring him pleasure, many individual sons, and an all goodness to man, without contradiction.

To summarize, in light of a…what…fourteen BILLION year old universe; in light of the fact that we’ve lost the majority of our own young history as a species, if it takes another million years or so to overcome evil…after about three million years beyond that it isn’t likely that an all good historical man will even remember the shit you and I had to endure to get him there and I can’t, in all good conscience, say this is a bad thing.

Dr. Retard

Suppose the world were immeasurably worse -- total agony. Or suppose the world were immeasurably better -- a world, say, free of despair. Your argument, I think, means that God has no reason to prefer one world over the other. If it justifies our world, it justifies any world; this is an absurd conclusion.

rainbow walking

Well, the argument wasn't designed to cover all suppositions but was based on reality to the best of my knowledge. I think it more absurd to decry the argument from suppositions such as this...don't you?

Dr. Retard

Well, no. No, I don't. Then again, I'm the one who decried it in the first place.

In any case, I don't see how your argument shows that free will is somehow necessary for the evil we have in our world. I can't see any connection between your premises (human freedom, independent morality, divine freedom, evil as a prerequisite for preferring or recognizing good, human preference for good, the mysterious premise 6, God's self-motivated creation of this process) and our world's evil. I mean, first off, I don't know if your premises are true; some of them, I don't even know what they mean. But I certainly don't see how they justify this instance of rape or that earthquake or any disease, or any evil whatsoever.

Biff the unclean

I find thee concept of Free Will rather bizarre. Firstly it isn't describing a condition but rather the lack there of. As I understand it Free Will is humans thinking for themselves and deciding what is best to do by themselves--just like any other animal.

It implies that God could impose his will on mankind, if he wanted to, but chooses not to. However what it portrays is God taking absolutely no action at all; which is exactly what you would expect if God were fictional.

Also it doesn't describe Yahweh of the bible.

Yahweh hated Free Will. He forbade Adam and Eve from eating the fruit that allowed them to think for themselves. The Talking Snake-- usually associated with the Devil-- gave man free will. God punished mankind severely for gaining free will and then saddled them with law after law that superceded any free will that they might care to exercise.

And in your part that declared that some evils have been defined, legislated against and man continues to enforce said legislation, and that his cultures and societies reflect this preference in their sustenance and constitutions. These "evils" you mention are almost invariably the laws that Yahweh laid down. For example the stoning to death of unruly children and the burning alive of Homosexuals and Atheists are very much legislated against by human laws; but demanded by God's law. To overcome evil man has had to overcome God. Which isn't that hard because it's a God who takes absolutely no actions and is indistinguishable from a God who doesn't even exist.

rainbow walking

[b]In any case, I don't see how your argument shows that free will is somehow necessary for the evil we have in our world. I can't see any connection between your premises (human freedom, independent morality, divine freedom, evil as a prerequisite for preferring or recognizing good, human preference for good, the mysterious premise 6, God's self-motivated creation of this process) and our world's evil. I mean, first off, I don't know if your premises are true; some of them, I don't even know what they mean. But I certainly don't see how they justify this instance of rape or that earthquake or any disease, or any evil whatsoever.[/'b]

FWD is not an argument to justify evil, but that an omni-benevolent god and evil could co-exist in the same world. Good and evil are not attributes of freewill, they are attributes of humanity. Do you find the prospect of a humanity with no self determination to be a better prospect?

Biff the unclean

Do you find the prospect of a humanity with no self determination to be a better prospect?

Ahh, so it's people who are so rotten and not your God! What a tap dance!
Your God takes no action what so even. To be able to take action in the face of evil but to choose not to is evil itself. There is no way around it.
The world does not reflect the presence of a God with the attributes you assign to this one. Free Will demonstrates the absence of God.

BrotherMan

Which is it? Is this deity an all good god or one capable of choosing what it can or cannot do?

Jobar

Biff, may I file the serial numbers off of that one and claim it for my own?

I try to avoid arguing free will- I've been up those steps too many times- but that is a bloody good argument against a Christian using it!

philechat

Problem:

If good and evil exist independent of God (premise 2), we cannot assume God is omnibenevolent, since this objective "good and evil" criterion requires human (and God's) determination. That is, God cannot be accepted a priori as omnibenevolent, since He must be judged first according to an objective principle of good and evil, before he be established as omnibenevolent.

It would be similar to the question "does God know He is omniscient? Could God actually be deluded about good and evil?"